Do not move an ancient boundary stone
which was put in place by your ancestors
-Proverbs 22:28

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

The Riddle of Rachel- Pt. 1

Rachel Held Evans seems to be creating quite a stir recently.Rachel has been the object of some
controversy with the large Christian retail chain- LifeWay. And has enjoyed
considerable notoriety by misrepresenting them.

She has also been the object of a great deal of amusement and
ridicule in the Christian as well as the secular media.And, I like amusing… so let’s address this
riddle of Rachel.Indeed, let’s have
some fun and hold up this enigma of Rachel Held Evans for examination.

Now, Rachel appears to have been on some sort of a mission for her
latest book.She appears to have been
challenged to assess various O.T. laws for her book.To assess laws particular to women.

Assessing them by slavishly practicing them for a year.To see if there was any redeeming value to
those laws.

And according to a recent interview on national radio
Rachel didn’t appear to find those laws all that redeeming or even pointing to
a Redeemer.And naturally, the
non-Christian interviewer seemed only interested in the titillating aspects of
her mission.Interested in her hypocrisy
as well as her dubious reasons for actually continuing to be a Christian.

Yet, Rachel seemed more interested in speaking of her ‘placing of
God on trial’.Speaking of her
upholding the ‘onerous’ sexual cleanliness laws for a year.Of not having sex with her husband for “12
days straight”/menstrual cycle as per Leviticus 15.Of living in an ‘isolation tent’ and of
travelling with a ‘butt isolator’ during this period.

Seemed more interested in speaking of the ‘terrible loneliness and
embarrassment’ that she experienced during that part of her cycle.Loneliness and embarrassment because she
wanted to put the LORD to the test (and no doubt tested her husband’s fidelity
as well).

A test of ancient “feminine rules and roles”.A test that appears to have yielded no
answers to her feminist riddle.And a
test that just seemed to accelerate Rachel’s anti-patriarchal diatribe.

But Rachel’s feminism should hardly be so hostile to the
patriarchs. Should hardly be so hostile to the Jewish patriarchal system, since
it actually is a system with a strong bent toward patronizing women!A far less hostile system than the expanding
Sharia system.And a far friendlier
system than her feminism.

But let’s only address one aspect of Rachel’s specific riddle
here.Let’s avoid the roles and focus on
the rules in question. Let’s address her
riddle regarding the ‘redeeming value’ of those ancient menstrual laws.And only address this aspect because I have already
addressed them as ‘pointing to a redeemer here .

And let’s get beyond a rather shallow interpretation of those laws.Let’s see if we can advance the discussion as
Rachel actually requested.Examine the
text of Leviticus 15 a little better. And examine the context a little better.

Let's advance the discussion with an internally consistent interpretation.
A comprehensive interpretation less intimidating, less embarrassing and far more
redeeming than Rachel’s. Something far more
God glorifying than Rachel seems to have discovered. Advance the discussion
with something that Rachel was ‘unable to discover’ in her current lamentations.Advance this with an interpretation that
radiates something considerably “more loving”- as was her want.

So, at the risk of seeming heretical, let’s consider quite a
different interpretation. An
interpretation contrary to that of Orthodox Jewish tradition.Indeed, an interpretation quite contrary to
those overzealous Pharisees who promoted similarly unlawful stuff. Who promoted unlawful stuff like Corban (Mark
7:11, 12) and ‘neglected the weightier provisions of the law’ (Matt. 23:23).

And let’s name and frame this riddle of Rachel’s.Let’s name this riddle as Rachel might like
to name this riddle.Let’s name this
riddle, ‘What hath Men to do with Menses?’

And let’s see if we can frame it positively. Frame it as promoting
healthiness and holiness rather than framing it as Cleansing Unhealthiness as
NASB has unfortunately titled this chapter.Frame it as “more loving” rather than “less unloving”.

But first, allow me to inform our readers- that men were also subject to the same admonitions in
this Levitical text.Rachel is just starting with the text that she
thinks applies to her.Rachel starts in
the middle of this text rather than the beginning of this text.Again, this admonition was not exclusive to
women.

This text starts by claiming that men are “unclean” due to a
“bodily discharge”.

And insists that men wereunclean for seven days following the cessation of their “bodily
discharge”. Not only that, but men were also
instructed to offer a “Sin Offering and a Burnt Offering” following this period.And that women were to keep their hands off their
men during this period (v.7).So quit yer’
whining about discrimination there, girls.Guys have to follow the same rules.

Yet the text progresses to something quite different happening with
respect to “seminal emission” (Lev. 15:16).Regardless of whether this seminal emission is voluntary or involuntary (wet
dreams are also covered in Deut. 23:10).In this text it seems that “seminal
emission” is in a distinctly different category than this “bodily discharge”
alluded to in verse 3.

It seems that the period of uncleanness for “seminal emission” is only until the following evening. And not only that, but no offering is required for this “seminal emission”.Again, “seminal emission” is NOT like the distinctly different discharge alluded
to previously.

And this distinctly different
discharge applies to women as well.As
this text progresses there is clearly some distinction regarding a discharge of
blood “NOT at the period of her menstrual impurity”.A distinction of “a discharge BEYOND that
period”.That for this distinctly different discharge “she
shall continue AS THOUGH in her menstrual impurity” (v. 25).And it is for this distinctly different discharge
for which an offering IS required.Again, we see distinctly different categories being addressed here.

Distinctions which are strangely not being observed by Orthodox
Jews or by Rachel.And as we shall see,
they seem to be observing radically different time periods as well.

Anyway, as regards the discharge- what might that distinctly different discharge be?

Well, the text suggests that internal (poop) as well as external
(puss) discharges could possibly be
in mind here (v.3).With this euphemistic
text even being so bold as to mention “spit” (v.8).And these discharges are distinctly different- yet it is highly unlikely for this text to be
speaking of such innocuous discharges… especially following such an extensive
text speaking of something as serious as leprosy.

And unlikely since it is understood from this text that the man is
only required to wash in the evening for a “seminal discharge”.Quite unlikely that a man would be considered
unclean for seven days following a pee.And unlikely since the man would soon be
bankrupted by bowel movements.And bankrupted
much more quickly by providing offerings for his wife’s movements (they go to
the washroom about 30% more).

Remember also, that a Sin Offering and a Burnt Offering is in
order here. So something else must be
in mind here. Something of a less
innocuous discharge… some kind of
sinful discharge.

And something of a less
innocuous discharge for women as well.A discharge of far greater import.Something of debilitating import.

Something of far greater import like STD discharges.Discharges which were even prevalent during
this Levitical period.Discharges as historian-Morton
relates were of far greater import, like “destructive ulcers” and “morbid
outgrowths” exuding “genital excresences”.

Excresences which are contagious and debilitating.Excresences that read like a WHMIS label. Excresences
causing blindness, infertility and death.Unhealthy stuff.

Excresences derived from unfaithfulness to one’s sexual partner.Excresences of infidelity.Excresences common to a licentious and
polygamous culture.Unholy stuff.

Excresences of sinful import.

Import requiring a Sin Offering for the
cleansing of self and a Burnt Offering to make atonement with God.